copyright infringement?

[Jarednem]

yea thats what I figured, im not worry about this perticular person out doing me, i was just curious

[kiwican]

No offense but you were not the first to make a leather book cover. Or put an elastic band in it or a pen holder and image. Even tho he said he saw your work and copied it I'd say you have no grounds for anything here. And if you did you should hold onto whatever money you have for when the next person comes along and says you copied their design for your book covers. I'm not meaning to be rude or belittle what you have created but you didn't do it first. If you...or anyone want to win this race then market smart, sell better, sell more and sell faster!

[Jarednem]

yea kinda got that from the first repsonse

 

[BDAZ]

The business side of leather making can be as challenging as the making side... I do think Kiwican came off a bit aggressive and condescending, although I assume he didn't intend to.

Bob 

[charon]

This topic gets me every now and then, great insight @BDAZ, thank you for that. I came across this topic when doing my minimalist cardholders. Accidentally I did the same "design" as a guy that did a (successful) kickstarter with his wallets, he even trademarked the name. While he has my respect for his great marketing skills, the design that he claims his own, is basically a piece of leather wrapped twice around itself, so nothing fancy or even unique. That guy also used lasers to cut the leather and make the stitch holes so there's even not much craftsmanship to it. Interestingly there was another guy doing a kickstarter with a similar design and he was hard pressed (with support of lawyers) to change his design. I don't think this design would stand a chance in a court regardless of the country but it made me think whether I could get trouble continue making these wallets. My conclusion was that I can but that topic never gets out of my mind. I don't know whether this has been discussed somewhere else but I would be highly interested in hearing your thoughts on that particular issue.

[charon]

14 minutes ago, nstarleather said:

Second guy has also gone after people doing the same design, it gets kinda nuts:

Now thats really ironical. The whole discussion is kind of retarded. As I said in my opinion thats a great achievement looking at it from a marketing perspective. They both made 25k$ with their products and should be happy with it. Threatening other people by claiming such a basic shape as "unique design" is ridiculous. I like your input in the reddit :-) It just made me think what I would do if I receive messages like that from people like them just because you sell a dozen wallets that look like that. I don't want to be arrogant, but mine are made from better material, crafted better and completely done by hand...

[fredk]

A; when someone goes to lawyer and says 'I have copyright on this' the lawyer takes his/her word for it and does not investigate if they have. They act on the word of their client

B. Its very, very expensive to take a court case. In N.I. a copyright case is a civil action and the complainant has to lodge a  minimum of £10, 000 ~ in cash, with the court before proceeding

C. I've had threats by lawyer letter over copyright ownership (I never infringe anyone's proper copyrights). I have just written a letter back to the lawyer; telling them 'no they don't have copyright' give an example or two, and tell them to prove it in court. Thats the last I've heard from them.

An eg; when I had a wooden toy company it was called 'Tyrone Toys'. Shortly after I started it I got a lawyers letter saying I infringed his clients copyright, his company name was 'County Tyrone Toys'. The letter told me the date from when the client had used the name, which predated the first of my toys going on sale. I sent back to the lawyer a newspaper advert and the company registration papers for my 'Tyrone Toys' which both predated his clients claim and told him' see you in court'. btw the other toy company changed to 'Wooden Toys of Co.Tyrone'

[BDAZ]

Remember that a copyright is not a patent.

In addition they would have to prove damages so I would just ignore anything that came from those Jokers. Let them take you to court and then you can cease and desist if and when that happens. Generally it's a lot of smoke and Bluster.

 

Good luck

 

Bob

 

[Lavinia]

Very interesting topic

[Morse]

On 6/3/2008 at 6:38 PM, russinchico said:

I know there are laws against it, but I have seen alot of stuff out there that I know is copy righted....and /or a trademark. I'm sure I could spend days reading stuff on the internet and get totally confused, I was more interrested in what was "acccepted" with the "leather Pros".

I am a new member so I am never sure where to post something, but I saw this concern about idea infringement.  I was looking for a place to show (anybody who might be interested) an idea I came up with that when made became a wonderfully useful item. I wanted any or all to make it themselves, even sell it themselves.  IF MY IDEA CAN BE MADE BETTER BY YOU then my idea has taken shape and grown to new heights.  I learned this years ago at the college of architecture where we all were influenced by each others ideas and the guy who originated the idea did not always get a better grade than the guy who did a better job with the same idea.  My project was and is a " Walkers water bottle and phone carrying case from leather both sturdy or soft leather. My wife loves it and REI probably has a dozen alternatives but we like leather stuff.  Tell me where do I share it so that if you like it you can make it or sell it?

[BDAZ]

Post it in the show off with a link to somewhere with a downloadable pattern and instructions. You could also establish a Paypal link for donations.

 

Bob

Tucson

[2Hill]

Ever since I first read this a few days ago I have been wondering what would happen if you had this on your work.

In text too small to see from a distance but blatantly obvious up close.

"THIS IS NOT A (insert badge/trademark of your choice) PRODUCT"

Not looking for an answer it's just something that keeps running through the back of my head. (man the sound of those footfalls gets distracting at times.)

[BDAZ]

Legally I doubt it would have any standing. If you copy a trade marked or patented  or copyright  design doesn't matter if it says "Made on Mars" you are liable to a law suit.

[2Hill]

I wasn't clear in what I meant. Not copy. But insert their patch,badge, leather coaster or"whatever", that had been bought from them with their logo on it.

[fredk]

Even that will be seen as copyright infringement and false representation of the item being endorsed by the company*. 

If you make less than a dozen the big company may not notice you, but start making a hundred  and you'll soon feel their weight.

* a number of years ago a T-shirt company in Belfast fell foul of the singer Rihanna. They obtained photos of her and printed them on their T-shirts. There is no law here, unlike the US, to protect a person's image. The company was sued for false representation that the T-shirts were 'endorsed' by Rihanna. Some of the photos used were Rihanna's own publicity shots sent out to publicise her events

Harley Davidson has come down hard on people making items and including bought HD merchandise. One that comes to mind was someone making a plain leather 'biker's wallet' and attaching a HD key ring to it on its chain. HD told him to cease, they had not 'endorsed' the wallet and buyers might be mis-led into thinking they had

[2Hill]

And here we see the main problem with American big business. They sell you something that is designed to be attached to a piece of clothing, then cry foul and sue you when you attach it to a piece of clothing. Claiming that you are representing that item of clothing is endorsed by them. When you are telling every man and his dog they Do Not endorse the item .

I am going to take a wild guess here and say the TShirt suit was filed in America. Because; as you said, "in the UK there is no law to protect a persons image". Which means it would most likely be thrown out of the UK system or they would have a harder time proving their case. Now if the shop had advertised the TShirts as Official Rhianna merc or endorsed by Rhianna then they are screwed no matter which Court system the case goes before, as they should be.

For twenty years or more the term "ugh boot" was a generic term in Australia for a hair-on rough-out item of sheepskin footwear. Then some Seppo company decides hey that's a cool name let's patent it. Now despite my understanding that prior use invalidates a patent application; I had better be talking about a deep pocketed Seppo companies product and not the worn out boots I have owned for thirty years, made by one of their competitors, who had been making said boot for years before they started production. Or I will be sued. That is Merican business for you.

[BDAZ]

Sounds like you have been on lock down too long mate!

First off you need to read up on the difference between a patent, a copyright and a trademark. I have all three and they are distinct protections for different activities. The thing you are not understanding is that when I sell a "branded" item be it a key chain or a logo on a Ferrari and it is sold with the understanding that it is for purchase by a consumer who will use it for the use intended by the manufacturer. Not to imply a  fraudulent product is endorsed or produced by the original manufacturer. The UGG (Not UGH as you have written)  boots (I hate them) were not patented but was trade marked along with an accompanying logo

There is no such thing as prior art in trademarks.

Bob

Edited May 25, 2020 by BDAZ

[fredk]

41 minutes ago, 2Hill said:

. . . I am going to take a wild guess here and say the TShirt suit was filed in America. Because; as you said, "in the UK there is no law to protect a persons image". Which means it would most likely be thrown out of the UK system or they would have a harder time proving their case. Now if the shop had advertised the TShirts as Official Rhianna merc or endorsed by Rhianna then they are screwed no matter which Court system the case goes before, as they should be.

. . . 

Actually, no, It was taken in Belfast Courts. On grounds of 'misrepresentation' of an 'endorsed product'. The shop did not promote the T-shirt as endorsed or official. They lost, compensation of £10,000, costs (estimated at £50,000) plus destruction of £25,000 worth of T-shirts. Shop no longer exists, owner on social security benefits and social housing.

In the US a person has automatic 'copyright' of their image so this case could have been taken as 'breach of copyright' in the US

There's a world of difference between me taking a BMW badge and adding it to my own key ring and me taking that same badge and adding it to products I could make for my son's garage to sell (he sells BMW car parts and services BMW cars) without BMW saying its ok.

Its just not 'American' big business, its all companies which have a brand to protect.

BMW own the brand name of Mini and produce a new version of the car. Late 1990s they sent a cease notice to a club in Northern Ireland. The club was Minis In Northern Ireland, M.I.N.I. The club let it go to court. BMW lost as the club origins went back to the 1970s and the court ruled Mini was a descriptive word and its use could not be enforced outside the context of using as describing one certain car.

[BDAZ]

Where in the North are you? Hung my hat in Mayo Bridge for a while in the 70s. Got out of the UK in March by the skin of my teeth.Had been on holiday...

Bob

[fredk]

East coast, about 20 miles east of Belfast, near the mouth of Belfast Lough. 7 miles further east of Bangor

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Donaghadee/@54.5890347,-5.7743502,10z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x4861762a42e07373:0xe985d44e36324315!8m2!3d54.6425555!4d-5.5375995

Mayobridge, a place where I've rallied through but never needed to stop in.

[2Hill]

1 hour ago, BDAZ said:

First off you need to read up on the difference between a patent, a copyright and a trademark. I have all three and they are distinct protections for different activities

OK looks like I got that one wrong. But my memory  of the news reports at the time are that it had been patented not trademarked. Faulty memory I guess.

1 hour ago, BDAZ said:

The thing you are not understanding is that when I sell a "branded" item be it a key chain or a logo on a Ferrari and it is sold with the understanding that it is for purchase by a consumer who will use it for the use intended by the manufacturer.

No I am understanding this. What I am not getting across is that it is being used for it's intended purpose; decoration. I am either making the item for myself (most likely) or a customer has asked me to make the item. Then I buy the logo "whatever" (if it is for me) and attach it; or the customer (if it is for them) buys the logo "whatever" and says your sewing is better than mine please attach this to my " " that you just made for me when you finish it.

1 hour ago, BDAZ said:

Not to imply a  fraudulent product is endorsed or produced by the original manufacturer.

After attaching the logo "whatever" I realise "Oh poo these guy like suing people for putting their stuff on things. I better make sure every one knows this is not their stuff. It only has their logo "whatever" on it as decoration as intended when they sold it". And add"THIS IS NOT A " " PRODUCT" around their logo "whatever".

 

1 hour ago, BDAZ said:

The UGG (Not UGH as you have written)  boots (I hate them) were not patented but was trade marked along with an accompanying logo

At the time there were several different spellings being used. These two were the most commonly used.

 

1 hour ago, BDAZ said:

There is no such thing as prior art in trademarks.

My understanding was wrong then. It still stinks when you can trademark a generic term though.

 

 

 

 

[2Hill]

1 hour ago, fredk said:

Actually, no, It was taken in Belfast Courts. On grounds of 'misrepresentation' of an 'endorsed product'. The shop did not promote the T-shirt as endorsed or official. They lost

Losing on copyright grounds I would be able to understand. On 'misrepresentation' of an 'endorsed product' just proves the"Law" is an arse.

 

1 hour ago, fredk said:

The club was Minis In Northern Ireland, M.I.N.I.

They didn't happen to be owners and/or fans of that particular "one certain car" did they?

Edited May 25, 2020 by 2Hill
punctuation correction

[chrisash]

I believe that there can be many trademarked logo's for the same name and owned by different companies, although they have to be clear they are not passing off another company

[BDAZ]

Fred, If someone brought a branded concho to be, say Ford, or what ever, and asked me to put it on their wallet, I wouldn't hesitate. If some came to me with 1000 conchos and asked me to make 1000 items and afix the logo, I would tell him to take a hike. 

The disclaimer has no legal standing in patent and trademark law.

 

Bob

[fredk]

1 hour ago, BDAZ said:

Fred, If someone brought a branded concho to be, say Ford, or what ever, and asked me to put it on their wallet, I wouldn't hesitate. If some came to me with 1000 conchos and asked me to make 1000 items and afix the logo, I would tell him to take a hike. 

umm, thats what I said in a different manner